11/16/24, 4:51 PM Tanedo vs.
Bernad
Title
Tanedo vs. Bernad
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 66520 Aug 30, 1988
A petitioner seeks legal redemption and damages after the respondent breaches a
promise to sell a portion of land, leading to a dispute over the use of a septic tank and
encroachment on the petitioner's building.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 66520)
Comprehensive
Facts:
The dispute involves two contiguous parcels of land in Cebu City, known as Lot 7501-A
and Lot 7501-B, originally owned by Antonio Cardenas.
Lot 7501-A measures 140 square meters and has an apartment building.
Lot 7501-B measures 612 square meters and contains various structures, including a
septic tank used by both lots.
On February 5, 1982, Antonio Cardenas sold Lot 7501-A to Eduardo C. Taedo and
mortgaged Lot 7501-B to Taedo as security for a loan of PHP 10,000.
Cardenas promised to sell Lot 7501-B to Taedo if he decided to sell it, confirmed in a
letter dated February 26, 1982.
Cardenas sold Lot 7501-B to spouses Romeo and Pacita Sim.
Upon learning of the sale, Taedo offered to redeem the property, but Romeo Sim
refused and blocked the sewage pipe connecting Taedo's building to the septic tank on
Lot 7501-B.
Taedo filed an action for legal redemption and damages in the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu, which was dismissed on December 5, 1983.
The motion for reconsideration was denied on January 20, 1984, prompting Taedo to
seek a review on certiorari.
Issue:
1. Can Eduardo Taedo redeem Lot 7501-B under Article 1622 of the Civil Code?
2. Is Taedo entitled to damages for the breach of promise to sell Lot 7501-B?
3. Does the use of the septic tank on Lot 7501-B by the occupants of Lot 7501-A continue
despite the sale of the lots to different owners?
[Link] 1/2
11/16/24, 4:51 PM Tanedo vs. Bernad
Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court found that Taedo cannot redeem the entire Lot 7501-B under
Article 1622 of the Civil Code because it is larger than Lot 7501-A. However, the case
should proceed to determine if Taedo can purchase the portion of Lot 7501-B occupied
by his building.
2. The Court ruled that a trial is necessary to determine the damages suffered by Taedo
due to the breach of promise by Cardenas to sell Lot 7501-B.
3. The Court held that the use of the septic tank continues by operation of law, and the
new owners of Lot 7501-B cannot impair its use.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action was
premature.
The test for sufficiency of a cause of action is whether the facts alleged, if admitted, can
lead to a valid judgment.
Taedo's claim to redeem the portion of Lot 7501-B occupied by his building should be
determined at trial.
The written agreement between Taedo and Cardenas, admitted by Cardenas,
necessitates a trial to assess damages for the breach of promise to sell.
The Court found that the trial court's finding that the right to use the septic tank ceased
upon the sale of the lots was contrary to law.
Article 631 of the Civil Code does not list the alienation of the dominant and servient
estates to different persons as a ground for extinguishing an easement.
Article 624 ensures the continuation of the easement unless explicitly abolished in the
deed of sale, which was not done in this case.
Therefore, the use of the septic tank continues by operation of law.
[Link] 2/2